You are confusing scientists with politicians. Published and peer reviewed science doesn't suggest solutions outside of the need to reduce carbon emissions. There is no opinion published in climate studies. Science isn't an opinion.

You're the one thinking of regular science, where that is true. However, Climate science is the only science that I know of, where the scientists also give political guidance in their findings. This is one of many examples: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo...3_ar5_full.pdf

Furthermore, look at how many climate scientists were thrown out of the Sierra Club for being pro-nuclear.

I'm not denying Climate Change, I'm simply stating that Nuclear power is the solution, yet instead of a simple solution, people with agendas, hijack that science to push their own goals.

I tune them all all out until they start advocating nuclear power, fastest and easiest way to get to a very low carbon footprint without destroying economies, nations, global security, and stability.

That said, aviation has to something fast to avoid getting caught up in a witch hunt. That's the reality, regardless of the merit or lack thereof in global warming theories.

This is important!

It's also not true.

Sources?
filler

It is totally true. There are almost no, none, zip, zero climate scientists working in the private sector, or with independent funding. They're either government employees or in academia with a very high reliance on government funding. Or funding from a source with a political agenda (of either stripe).

That's true of many other disciplines as well, so in and of itself does not automatically invalidate anything, but it is something to consider before we take measures which will have drastic economic and societal consequences.

Exxon has climate scientists and internal documents acknowledged as early as 1977 the role of CO2 and humans in climate change.

Were they predicting global warming then, or global cooling? :rolleyes: :cool:

What interest does a government funded scientist have in pushing the facts on climate change? Do you think they have a stake in green energy technologies?

The only privately funded studies of climate change have been funded by coal and gas companies, and perhaps to a much lesser extent by political organizations. Do you think a PRIVATE, CORPORATE funded "scientific" study is more reputable than impartial scientists on the government payroll?

If anything, the government would prefer its scientists to greenlight fracking, the continued use of carbon based power, and the status quo. What incentive is there for nefarious motives that you and others seem to imply on the part of "government employees," given the enormous economic costs involved? If anything, privately funded science would be far more nefarious given that those paying for the studies will always have an explicit and self-serving agenda. What interest does the US government have in putting out the alarm on climate change when it would economically benefit the US to perpetuate the status quo?

Frankly, this kind of suspicion is kind of ridiculous. Coal and gas companies have spent many millions of dollars lobbying politicians to protect their industries. Their own studies conducted in the late 80's and 90's predicted the current complications of greenhouse gas emissions. Despite this, you think we should be suspicious of scientists who might be in bed with BIG SOLAR or paid for by Uncle Sam to push a green agenda which this administration is so antagonistic to?? What is the basis for your suspicions?

You seem to be skeptical of the fact that there is consensus on the issue. Consensus should not be seen as a reason for skepticisim, but rather a testament to the veracity of their findings. If a scientist can legitimately cut another scientist down for problematic findings, they will. That would literally make any individual scientist's career to disprove the belief of 99% of the scientific community. In this case, literally 99% of climate scientists agree, despite the fact they have every incentive to poke holes in the prevailing theories.

I don't understand the mindset which views experts who have impartially studied the facts with no financial stake in the issue with suspicion, while advocating that more corporate funded study needs to be undertaken. I agree that aviation is an easy scapegoat and there are more worthy targets, but ignoring 99% of the experts because you suspect groupthink ignores the literal basis of scientific progress (ie consensus), underestimates the professionalism of the people in this field, and completely ignores the fact that they're not the ones with the big money on the line.